87

Heck, we have brought foreign presidents to the US and prosecuted them for federal laws…

88

Treason: 1 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance.

From Merriam Webster. A green card holder does not take an oath of allegiance, however they do agree contractually to uphold the laws. Though I tend to think not Treason… it would be Spying. IMO.

89

I think I’m arguing that constitutional amendment via the discussion at the time, shows that if you are born in the United States – you are a citizen here. I’m not sure why you answered my post that way.

90

What about those who are here on work permits, student visa’s, and other such ways they are here legally but not an official “green card” to live here without needing to be employed to keep the car, be in school to keep the card? (here legally but probably not subect to selective service, expected to support the form of government, but pays taxes?

91

When I was referring to “those crimes”, it was to the crime of Murder in those cases. Murder is usually a State offense except in cases similar to what you were referring to.

with Noriega, it is a military action not a civil action, has zero to do with immigrations. Are you trying to imply he was subject to the jurisdiction of the United State?

92

No, I was asking the poster to show that an illegal (or legal for that matter) immigrant can’t be charged with murder by the federal government IF the illegal breaks said law. Because if they can, then it makes their argument that an illegal can’t be charged with murder by the federal government incorrect.

1 Like
93

They are legally here, however they are here temporarily and very conditionally. Student Visa is to get an education. Work permit is to earn money with a specific company (which can changes but needs to be registered). Neither are here to seek permanent residence. So it would on the surface to be outside the greed condition for being here. However I do not see any constitutional reason why they can’t apply for a status change while here under the temporary conditions. Congress is free to change the immigration law to accommodate these circumstances without an amendment.

94

What power if any does say a state have in this issue? For example say a particular state was experiencing excessively high levels of illegal immigrant births and consequently was seeing a dramatic strain in their hospitals and welfare budgets. What if anything could a state do about that? Could the state challenge the 14th Amendment? Could that state deny birthright citizenship?

95

I agree that a Federal Crime can be charged to illegal immigrants. My response was poorly worded, more to disprove that just because an illegal immigrant can be prosecuted for a crime, does not mean they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. As the murder was a State violation, and no one as far as I know is subject to the jurisdiction of any one State unless perhaps you take a State oath of office. Yet we are all fall under the jurisdiction of State laws on which we are in just not subject to the jurisdiction of the State. Such as Texas and open Carry, I am not subject to the Jurisdiction of New York. However I do have to follow their laws if I step foot in New York. The real discussion is over the meaning of subject.

96

It’s funny you mention that…

Texas Agrees to Resolve Birth Certificate Case With Undocumented Familes

Texas reaches deal on birth certificates for immigrant kids

It’s almost like there is not a lot ambiguity here…

Or maybe the government of Texas is just full of liberals…

97

The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. Can you give the definitions of a “legal” immigrant and and “illegal” immigrant when the amendment was ratified?

98

This is different from what I was asking. There was no challenge to the 14th Amendment in this article. The scenario I put forth is quite different.

99

The case is more about birth certificates and the ID’s accepted by Texas to get a Birth Certificate It does not in anyway resolve the “birthright” claim.

100

This sentence is self-evidently contradictory. It reveals the core flaw in your reasoning.

Contrast the “illegal immigrant” with the foreign diplomat. The latter is immune from prosecution (generally), therefore NOT subject to US jurisdiction. The former is subject to US jurisdiction. None of the other hypotheticals you offer changes that fact, a fact which satisfies the requirement of the 14th Amendment.

1 Like
101

You put it better than I did.

102

interesting challenge. But lets start with Webster again
: a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence

Ok, if you want to take up permanent residence in a foreign country. There are two ways initially that I can see it happening. 1. lawfully with the agreement of the foreign country 2. unlawfully, without the agreement of the foreign country.

if 1. then everything is fine.
if 2. then the country can classify you however they see fit. Invader, occupier, invasion, or even who cares.

However at no time does the foreign country give up its claim to classify the illegal immigrant as it see’s fit. I think it has been this way since the creation of countries, nations, empires, Tribal lands. When it gives up its claim or loses it by force, it will no longer be. So the definition can never change. We for a long time chose the “who Cares” , but that is changing. We either have the right to change our position or we will no longer exist. To deny it is like trying to argue with death.

103

Then what of the discussion that the children of Migrant Chineese workers (who were not permanent residents) and the children of the Migrant Gypsy (again, not seeking permanent residency) would be American Citizens under the amendment.

So I ask again, what was the definition of an “illegal” imigrant at the time the act was passed? At the time the act was passed, those not under the juristiction were diplomats and such.

104

no BigBear. It is not “therefore” it is acknowledgment that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the country they represent. Thus proving that you can be on this soil and still be subject to the jurisdiction of your country of citizenship. Let us say that a ambassador commits murder, we can deport the ambassador and insist the ambassador be prosecuted for murder. We can break ties, with the country we can even declare war on the country. If we break ties or declare war, then the ambassador would no longer need to be returned and could indeed be prosecuted under our law. So are you trying to say, he was not subject to the jurisdiction but now is? No his status with us has not changed, the diplomatic agreement has. His status is static, Diplomacy is not.

105

If the state can’t even get the Federal government to enforce existing immigration laws to remove those here illegally, what chance are they going to have to challenge the 14th amendment?

1 Like
106

But that’s not what the word means.

You just keep making up definitions to suite your cause.